Download PDF

Tanzania Judgment

TANZLII

alexander kalua wahyungi vs eqba ebrahim 2021 tzhclandd 760 29 october 2021

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Since the respondent has conceded and confirmed the removal of the original caveat, and the reason for its lodgment no longer exists, the court declares the caveat does not exist and orders costs against the respondent.

Court disposition

Application allowed

Orders

  • The caveat for Misc. Land Case Appl. No. 916 of 2016 does not exist.
  • Costs for this application to be borne by the respondent.

02

Material facts

Parties

Alexander Kalua Wahyungi

Applicant Counsel: Isaac Nassor Tasinga

Eqbal Ebrahim

Respondent Counsel: Captain Ibrahim Bendera

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Application to Remove Caveat

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The caveat is no longer valid as the related application was dismissed; the caveat should be removed and costs awarded.
Respondent
The original caveat has already been withdrawn and replaced with a new caveat pending an application before the Court of Appeal; the application is overtaken by events and should be dismissed with no order as to costs.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Court's inherent jurisdiction and practice in land registration matters

    A caveat may be removed if the reason for its lodgment no longer exists.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Since the respondent has conceded and confirmed the removal of the original caveat, and the reason for its lodgment no longer exists, the court declares the caveat does not exist and orders costs against the respondent.

Obiter and limits

  • The respondent's withdrawal of the caveat under unusual circumstances was noted by the court.

Court disposition

Application allowed

  • The caveat for Misc. Land Case Appl. No. 916 of 2016 does not exist.
  • Costs for this application to be borne by the respondent.

Source and reliance status

TANZLII · 29 October 2021

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

TANZLII

Judgment· 29 October 2021

alexander kalua wahyungi vs eqba ebrahim 2021 tzhclandd 760 29 october 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA

LAND DIVISION

AT DAR ES SALAAM MISC. APPLICATION NO. 322 OF 2020 ALEXANDER KALUA WAHYUNGI................................ Ist APPLICANT

VERSUS EQBAL EBRAHIM........................................................... RESPONDENT

RULING Date of last Order: 5/10/2021 Date of Ruling: 29/10/2021 T. N. MWENEGOHA, J: The applicant is approaching this Court seeking: i. This Honourable Court be pleased to order the Respondent to show cause as to why his CAVEAT lodged to encumber Plot No. 504 EX- DAYA ESTATE DATE ES SALAAM CITY with certificate No. 100578 should not be removed. ii. This Honourable Court be pleased to declare that the reason for lodging the CAVEAT is no longer in existence so that the lodged CAVEAT must be removed. iii. Other Orders as this honourable Court may be pleased to grant, iv. The costs of this Application to be borne by the respondent. i In support of this application the applicant filed an affidavit sworn by himself and countered by the Counter affidavit of the respondent. The applicant was represented by Advocate Isaac Nassor Tasinga while the respondent was represented by captain Ibrahim Bendera, Advocate. Application was argued by Written submissions where in his submission Counsel Tasinga informed this Court, that respondent filed Caveat against Misc. Land Case Appl. No. 916 of 2016 and the fact that the application is dismissed, the Caveat is no longer valid and prayed for this Court to remove it with order to costs. In reply, Advocate Captain Bendera submitted that after Misc. Appl. 726/2016 being dismissed the respondents on 25/6/2020. They filed notice of motion to Court of

Appeal of Tanzania for enlargement of time for a revision where the Court of Appeal could revise the High Court ruling notice of motion Civil Appl. No. 235 of 2017. He submitted further that the Caveat that the applicant wants this honourable Court to remove has already been withdrawn and in its place a new Caveat has been registered pending application Court Appeal of Tanzania Civil Appl. No. 235/2017. They attached the new Caveat for judicial notice. The respondent prayed for the application to be marked overtaken by event with no order as to costs. In his rejoinder, Mr. Tasinga challenged respondent's Caveat by arguing that it is an afterthought because this application was filed in 18/6/2020 and the new Caveat was 2020 after lodgement of current application. Therefore, it 2 shows that the respondent has withdrawn leave of the Court which is unsual practice. This Court is noting that the respondent has conceded and declaring in his submission that he has removed the Caveat, albeit under unusual circumstances as pointed out by the applicants. It is noted further that the applicant is praying for the Court to declare that the reason for the lodging of the Caveat no longer exist and that the Caveat be removed. As the respondent has confirmed that this is the position; then this Court doth hereby declare that Caveat for Misc. Land Case Appl. No. 916 of 2016 does no longer exists. Costs for this application to be borne by the respondents. It is so ordered. Dated at Dar es salaam this 29th day of October, 2021. 3

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.